¹ A. Momigliano, The conflict between paganism and Christianity in the fourth century, Oxford 1963, 90.

² Eusebius, HE ii.13, in Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, ed. G. Bardy, SC xxxi, xli, lx, lxxiii, Paris 1952–60. On the treatment of heresies in Eusebius' History see M. Verdoner, Narrated reality: the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea, Frankfurt 2011, 132–4.

³ Theodoret, HE i.2, in Theodoret Kirchengeschichte, ed. L. Parmentier, GCS, Leipzig 1911.

⁴ Evagrius, HE i.1; ii.5, in The Ecclesiastical history of Evagrius with the scholia, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier, London 1898, repr. Amsterdam 1964.

⁵ Sozomen, HE ii. 30.1; vi.23.10; viii.26.18, in Sozomenus Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. C. Hansen, 2nd edn, GCS, Berlin 1995; P. Van Nuffelen, Un Héritage de paix et de piété: étude sur les histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène, Leuven 2004, 306–7.

⁶ On the dating of Socrates's History see H. Leppin, Von Constantin dem Grossen zu Theodosius II, Göttingen 1996, 274–9; T. Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople: historian of Church and State, Michigan 1997, 20; M. Wallraff, Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates. Untersuchungen zu Geschichtsdarstellung, Methode und Person, Göttingen 1997, 210–12; and Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 12.

⁷ Urbainczyk, Socrates, 99 and n. 73. Her statement is elaborated further in her footnote: ‘It might be argued that Momigliano's statement could apply to Socrates if the latter thought that dissension is a manifestation of moral weakness and that this weakness is ultimately an expression of evil. But there are no indications that such a view lies behind Socrates's text.’

⁸ Van Nuffelen comments that ‘Contrairement à certains théologiens, qui accordent un grand poids au rôle du diable dans le monde, chez Socrate son rôle est relativement restreint’: Héritage, 301; cf. P. Maraval, Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique, trans. P. Périchon and P. Maraval, SC cdlxxvii, 2004, 18; Wallraff, Kirchenhistoriker, 261.

⁹ In Socrates's History the plural of αἵρεσις is used to refer to all Christians regardless of their doctrinal affiliation. The singular is used to designate a number of individual Christian groups: for example HE ii.37.26 (Arian); ii.46.1 (Apollinarian); iii.9.6 (Luciferian); i.9.28 (Macedonian); vi.9.4 (Manichaen); i.27.7 (Melitian); ii.18.7 (Photinian); v.23.12 (Psathyrian) (Hansen edn), but does not directly identify either Novatians or Homoousians as a heresy. Wallraff has argued that the negative connotations of αἵρεσις in Socrates are not very pronounced; that where negativity is expressed it is more concerned with division in the Church than with false teaching and belief: Kirchenhistoriker, 36–7. Socrates is certainly concerned with division but his use of the singular as a form of designation seems suspiciously careful. This paper uses the terms ‘heresy’ and ‘heresies’ to mean something akin to ‘group’, and discusses potential pejorative connotations of wrong belief explicitly.

¹⁰ Urbainczyk, Socrates, 132 n. 74, 154–5; Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 300; Krivushin, I., ‘Socrates Scholasticus' church history: themes, ideas, heroes’, Byzantinische Forschungen xxii (1996), 99–100Google Scholar.

¹¹ ‘Es ist ohne weiteres denkbar, daß auch Socrates und Sozomenus als Gläubige letzlich den Teufel, der sich der Menschen bediene …, für die Häresien verantwortlich machten, aber entscheidend ist, daß sie trotz des Vorbildes Euseb … die Häresien in der Kirchengeschichte nicht unter diesem Blickwinkel darstellen, sondern sich auf die profaneren Erklärungen beschränken’: Leppin, Von Constantin, 175 n. 64.

¹² ‘the uniting of demonic inspiration with doctrinal error created the sharp spiritual and apocalyptic boundary between truth and heresy’: J. R. Lyman, ‘Heresiology: the invention of “heresy” and “schism”’, in A. Casiday and F. W. Norris (eds), The Cambridge history of Christianity, II: Constantine to c. 600, Cambridge 2007, 297.

¹³ Socrates's emphasis on Christian unity over doctrine, his more neutral use or indeed avoidance of some polemical terminology, as well as his perceived praise of non-homoousian clerics and concurrent censure of homoousian clergy have all been cited in support of such claims. See, for example, F. M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: a guide to the literature and its background, Philadelphia 1983, 24–5; Maraval, Socrate, SC cdlxxvii, 13; and W. Treadgold, The early Byzantine historians, New York 2007, 138–9. Note, however, that Van Nuffelen warns against mistaking Socrates's moderate tone for neutral observation: Héritage, 84; and that Wallraff argues against too modern an interpretation of toleration: Kirchenhistoriker, 257. Socrates's tendency to locate the origins of heresies primarily in the personal foibles of church leaders has been contrasted with the approach of church historians who emphasise demonic inspiration. See Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 83; A. Martin, ‘L'Origine de l'arianisme vue par Théodoret’, in B. Pouderon and Y.-M. Duval (eds), L'Historiographie de l’Église des premiers siècles, Paris 2001, 358–9; Leppin, Von Constantin, 174–5; and Krivushin, ‘Socrates Scholasticus’, 100–1. B. Grillet and G. Sabbah provide a parallel example when they discuss Sozomen and comment on his lack of hostility toward and even praise of heretics, while also contrasting his denunciation of heretics for human foibles with Eusebius' recourse to demonic motivation: Sozomèn, Histoire ecclésiastique, trans. A.-J. Festugière, SC cccvi, 1983, 51.

¹⁴ The selection and presentation of material in Socrates's History implies his support for those who adhere to the homoousian faith promulgated at the councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). How Socrates presents homoousian or Nicene Christianity, however, has been the subject of discussion. The historian's tendency to identify right belief with Origen in the midst of the Origenist controversy and his clear sympathy, or even possible membership of the Novatian Church, has received considerable attention. For different views on Socrates's Origenism see G. Chesnut, The first Christian histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius, Macon 1986, 177–82; Urbainczyk, Socrates, 5; and Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 37–41. Wallraff provides a thorough discussion of the evidence for Socrates's membership of the Novatian Church. His treatment, which argues for Socrates's Novatianism, has convinced some, but not all: Kirchenhistoriker, 235–57. See Treadgold, Early Byzantine historians, 136; P. Maraval, Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique, trans. P. Périchon and P. Maraval (SC cdxciii, 2005), 9 n. 1; Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 42–6; H. Leppin, ‘The church historians (I): Socrates, Sozomenus, and Theodoretus’, in G. Marasco (ed.), Greek and Roman historiography in late antiquity: fourth to sixth century A. D., Leiden 2003, 221–2.

¹⁵ This is not to pretend that there is no discussion of the topic. See, for example, P. Allen, ‘Use of heretics and heresies in the Greek church historians: studies in Socrates and Theodoret’, in G. Clarke (ed), Reading the past in late antiquity, Sydney 1990, 265–89, esp. p. 282. Allen compares rather than contrasts Socrates's and Theodoret's similarly ‘disingenuous use of the past … on the subject of Novatianism and the Arian background to the Antiochene schism’. There is a tendency, however, to dismiss or downplay apparent instances of pejorative language and presentation without considering their polemical function in the History. Urbainczyk, for example, focuses solely on how Socrates's description of Arianism as an ‘evil’ and a ‘fire’ (Socrates, HE ii.2.8–9) is unusual in the context of the History and more like Eusebius' treatment of heresies: Socrates, 154. See also n. 9 above.

¹⁶ On i.22 and Socrates's use of biblical citations and written sources see Urbainczyk, Socrates, 56, and Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 274. The methodological statement at i.22.14, which will be treated below, has attracted most attention in relation to Socrates's intended scope and subject matter (Wallraff, Kirchenhistoriker, 135, 140; Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 178), his approach to causation (Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 295–7, 302, 421) and presentation of his own impartiality (Urbainczyk, Sokrates, 45–6; Wallraff, Kirchenhistoriker, 41).

¹⁷ See pp. 17–21 below for discussion of some current interpretations.

¹⁸ Socrates, HE i.22.1. See p. 8 and nn. 38 and 40 below.

¹⁹ Socrates, HE i.22.1. Van Nuffelen, Héritage (302 n. 421) suggests a specific allusion to the false apostles of 2 Cor. xi but see also 274, n. 269 and 458, which list additional passages on false prophets and apostles (Matt. xiii. 25; 2 Cor. xiii [sic.]; 2 Pet. ii. 1; and also Matt. vii. 15; xxiv.11, 24, and Mark xiii. 22).

²⁰ Socrates, HE i.22.2.

²¹ Ibid. i.22.2–3; cf. Eusebius, HE vii.31.

²² Socrates, HE i.22.3.

²³ Ibid. i.22.4–5.

²⁴ Ibid. i.22.6.

²⁵ Ibid. i.22.7.

²⁶ Ibid. i.22.8.

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ Ibid. i.22.9–12.

²⁹ Ibid. i.22.13.

³⁰ Ibid. i.22.14–5.

³¹ Socrates provides several prefaces (to books i, ii, v and vi) discussing his methods.

³² Wallraff, Kirchenhistoriker, 251 and n. 179. Socrates may refer back to events, or people who lived, before the time of Constantine, but the only chapters which aim to consider such early material in detail are those on Manichaeism, the account of Gregory Thaumaturgus and the very sympathetic treatment of the Novatian schism: Socrates, HE i.22; iv.27, 28.

³³ The second is found in book vii: Socrates, HE vii.3.2.

³⁴ On the lack of education among non-Nicenes see, for example, ibid. ii.35.10; iv.26.10.

³⁵ On the misuse of logic and tendency of non-Nicenes to misunderstand the texts that they use see, for example, ibid. ii.45.14; iv.7.6–9; v.7.8. For discussion of Socrates's attitude to Greek learning and the role of philosophy and logic in his presentation of religious controversy see P. Maraval, ‘Socrate et la culture grecque’, in B. Pouderon and Y.-M. Duval (eds), L'Historiographie de l’Église des premiers siècles, Paris 2001, 281–91; C. Eucken, ‘Philosophie und Dialektik in der Kirchengeschichte des Sokrates', in B. Bälber and H.-G. Nesselrath (eds), Die Welt des Sokrates von Konstantinopel, Leipzig 2001, 96–110; and R Lim, Public disputation, power, and social order in late antiquity, Berkeley 1995, 199–205.

³⁶ For common heresiological tropes and topoi in the early Christian period see A. Le Boulluec, La Notion d'hérésie dans la littérature grecque, IIe–IIIe siècles, Paris 1985. For late antiquity and more specifically works against Manichaeism see also Lyman, ‘Heresiology’, 296–313, and Coyle, J. K., ‘Foreign and insane: labelling Manichaeism in the Roman Empire’, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses xxxiii (2004), 217–34Google Scholar.

³⁷ ‘ἀλλὰ μεταξὺ τοῦ χρηστοῦ σίτου εἴωθεν καὶ τὰ ζιζάνια ϕύεσθαι· ϕθόνος γὰρ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἐϕεδρεύειν ϕιλεῖ. παρεϕύη γὰρ μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν Κωνσταντίνου χρόνων τῷ ἀληθεῖ Χριστιανισμῷ έλληνίζων Χριστιανισμός, καθάπερ καὶ τοῖς προϕήταις ψευδοπροϕῆται καὶ ἀποστόλοις ψευδαπόστολοι παρεϕύοντο. τηνικαῦτα γὰρ τὸ Ἐμπεδοκλέουσ τοῦ παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι ϕιλοσόϕου δόγμα διὰ τοῦ Μανιχαίου Χριστιανισμὸν ὑπεκρίνατο’: Socrates, HE i.22.1–2.

³⁸ Maraval seems to connect ζιζάνια in particular with the biblical passage: Socrate, SC cdlxxvii, 202. Cf. Hansen, Sokrates, 66, and Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 274 n. 269, 458. The latter lists Matt. xiii.25 though he focuses on the reference to pseudo-prophets and their connection with a range of New Testament passages.

³⁹ Bainton, R. H., ‘The parable of the tares as the proof text for religious liberty to the end of the sixteenth century’, Church History i/2 (1932), 67–8Google Scholar; J. B. Russell, Satan: the early Christian tradition, Ithaca 1981, 36.

⁴⁰ Eusebius, Vita Constantini ii.61.3 (‘τοῖς ἡμετέροις … καλοῖς’); iii.59.1 (‘τοῖς καλοῖς’), in Eusebius Werke: Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, ed. F. Winkelmann, 2nd edn, Berlin 1975.

⁴¹ On Socrates's use of Eusebius' writings see F. Geppert, Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Socrates Scholasticus, Leipzig 1972, 23–4.

⁴² Eusebius, Vita Constantini ii.73.1 (‘ϕθόνος τις καὶ πονηρὸς δαίμων’); iii.1.1(‘ὁ μὲν δὴ μισόκαλος ϕθόνος’); iii.4.1(‘τῆς τοῦ ϕθόνου βασκανίας’); iv.41.1(‘μισόκαλος δὲ κἀν τούτῳ ϕθόνος’).

⁴³ On Eusebius' use of terms for the devil see Bartelink, G. J. M., ‘ΒΑΣΚΑΝΟΣ désignation de Satan et des démons chez les auteurs chrétiens’, Orientalia Chistiana Periodica il (1983), 395–7Google Scholar. The role of the devil, or envy, in dividing Christians in the Vita Constantini is quite different from that in the HE where it inspires a succession of heresiarchs. On the cautious presentation of the early fourth-century controversies in which Eusebius took part see A. Cameron and S. G. Hall, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Oxford 1999, 258. On the demonic causes of heresies in the Historia ecclesiastica see Verdoner, Narrated reality, 132–5.

⁴⁴ D. Konstan, The emotions of the ancient Greeks: studies in Aristotle and classical literature, Toronto 2006, 111–28; G. J. D. Aalders H. Wzn., ‘The hellenistic concept of the enviousness of fate’, in M. J. Vermaseren, Studies in hellenistic religions, Leiden 1979, 1–8; Bartelink, ‘ΒΑΣΚΑΝΟΣ’, 390.

⁴⁵ M. Hinterberger, ‘Envy and nemesis in the Vita Basilii and Leo the Deacon: literary mimesis or something more?’, in R. Macrides (ed.), History as literature in Byzantium: papers from the Fortieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Farnham 2010, 201; Bartelink, G. J. M., ‘Μισόκαλος, épithéte du diable’, Vigiliae Christianae xii/1 (1958), 40Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Socrates, HE i.8.13; i.33.2; vi.5.1; vii.11.4; vii.15.4; vii.36.2; vii.45.5.

⁴⁷ Ibid. i.8.13; vi.5.1; vii.36.2.

⁴⁸ Ibid. i.33.2; vii.11.4.

⁴⁹ ‘τίς δὲ ἡ αἰτία, δι᾽ ἣν ὁ ἀγαθὸς θεὸς τοῦτο γίνεσθαι συγχωρεῖ, πότερον γυμνάσαι τὰ ἀγαθὰ τῶν δογμάτων βουλόμενος ἢ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει προσγινομένην ἀλαζονείαν ἐκκόπτειν, ἢ ὅπως ποτὲ ἔχει, δυσχερὴς μὲν καὶ μακρὰ ἡ ἀπόδοσις, οὐκ εὔκαιρος δὲ νῦν ἐξετάζεσθαι’: ibid. i.22.14.

⁵⁰ Hegemonius, Acta Archelai, in Hegemonius, Acta Archelai, ed. C. H. Beeson, GCS Leipzig 1906, xxvii (xxiv).9–11, xxviii (xxv).10–11. On the presentation of Manichaean beliefs about good and evil as two principles with separate existence in the Acta see K. Kaatz, ‘The light and the darkness: the two natures, free will, and the scriptural evidence in the Acta Archelai’, in J. Beduhn and P. Mirecki (eds), Frontiers of faith: the Christian encounter with Manichaeism in the Acts of Archelaus, Leiden 2007, 103–18.

⁵¹ Hegemonius, Acta Archelai xxxix (xxxv).1, 6–7; xli.1; xlii (xxxviii).11; lxv (liv).8.

⁵² ‘Weeds’ appear only twice in the Acta in Mani's description of the devil as a ‘planter of weeds’ (‘zizaniorum seminatorem’) and in an expression that sees Archelaus acknowledge that Mani and his ilk will be ‘multiplied like weeds’ (‘multiplicari tamquam zizanis’): Hegemonius, Acta Archelai xv (xiii).7; xl (xxxvi).8, trans. M. Vermes, Turnhout 2001. The image of the wheat growing up among the weeds in Socrates's History would seem to be a more emphatic recollection of Matt. xiii.

⁵³ Hegemonius, Acta Archelai lxii.3.

⁵⁴ On the interpretation of ἑλληνίζων χριστιανισμός at i.22.1 see. Henrichs, A., ‘Mani and the Babylonian Baptists: a historical confrontation’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology lxxvii (1973)Google Scholar, 52 n. 108, and Wallraff, Kirkenhistorker, 83–4. Socrates's approach to Greek education and learning is characteristically positive (see esp. HE iii.16 and n. 35 above). The expression ἑλληνίζων χριστιανισμός seems to convey a peculiarly religious focus as suggested by Socrates's later statement (HE i.22.8) that Mani's books ‘were Christian in expression, but Greek in doctrines. For Manichaeus taught the worship of many gods because he was an atheist’ (‘αἱ ὑποθέσεις χριστιανίζουσι μὲν τῇ ϕωνῇ, τοῖς δὲ δόγμασιν ἑλληνίζουσιν· καὶ γὰρ θεοὺς πολλοὺς σέβειν ὁ Μανιχαῖος προτρέπεται <αὐτὸς> ἄθεος ὤν’).

⁵⁵ Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 300–3.

⁵⁶ Socrates, HE i.22.1 (ϕύω); 1.22.1 (παραϕύω, bis); i. 22.15 (παραϕύω).

⁵⁷ ‘ὅπως μὲν οὖν μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν Κωνσταντίνου χρόνων ἡ Μανιχαίων παρεϕύη θρησκεία’: ibid. i.22.15.

⁵⁸ Ibid. ii.18.7; ii.35.1; ii.46.1.

⁵⁹ The use of ἐπιϕύω in descriptions of disease makes this sense of additional growth very clear. See especially Aristotle, Historia animalium 572a, 605a, in Aristote, Histoire des animaux, ed. P. Louis, Paris 1964–9; Polybius, i.81.7, in Polybii historiae, ed. T. Büttner-Wobst, Leipzig 1889–1905, repr. Stuttgart 1962–7.

⁶⁰ Φύω terminology, used to describe the emergence of heresies, is well represented in, for example, Epiphanius, ed. K. Holl, Epiphanius, i, GCS, Leipzig 1915; ii–ii, ed. K. Holl, rev. J. Dummer, GCS, Berlin 1980, 1985 (xx.4.9; xxv.2.1; xxxi.2.1; xxxvi.4.2; li.1.1; lix.1.1; lxiii.1.1; lxix.63.1; lxxvii.1.1 and below), and sporadically in the church historian Eusebius (HE ii.14.3; iv.28.1; v.14.1; vi.37.1; vii.31.2). In these works there is no concentration of ϕύω or its compounds in any one chapter as is found in Socrates, HE i.22. Moreover, the polemical function of ϕύω vocabulary is not always the same. Epiphanius provides an interesting illustration. In his heresiological treatise ϕύω is regularly used with ἐκ, ἀπό, or the genitive alone to describe the growth of one doctrine from another: Panarion xxvi.1.1; xxvii.1.2; xxxv.1.1; lxiv.4.1; lxxiii.1.1, lxxiii.38.3).

⁶¹ Sozomen never uses ϕύω or its compounds in a similar way, despite his apparent, albeit unacknowledged, use of Socrates's History: Hansen, Sokrates, p. xlv. There is a large body of literature now that stresses the distinctiveness of Socrates's and Sozomen's histories. The expressions that Sozomen does use to introduce the subject of Photinus, Aetius and Apollinarius certainly resonate with his own language of prejudice, but also illustrate the kind of variation that was possible. Thus, ‘At this time Photinus … openly introduced his own doctrine’ (‘ἐν τούτῳ δὲ Φωτεινός…ἀναϕανδὸν τῷ οἰκείῳ συνίστατο δόγματι’): Sozomen, HE iv.6.1; ‘About this time Aetius taught openly the doctrine he held about god’ (‘περὶ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον εἰς τὸ ϕανερὸν ἐδίδασκεν Ἀέτιος ἣν εἶχε περὶ θεοῦ δόξαν’): iv.12.1; ‘At this time Apollinarius openly presided over a heresy named after him’ (‘ἐν τούτῳ δὲ εἰς τὸ προϕανὲς προΐστατο Ἀπολινάριος τῆς ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὀνομαζομένης αἱρέσεως’): vi.25.1.

⁶² Socrates, HE i.22.3; cf. LSJ s.v. παρεισάγω.

⁶³ Ibid. i.23.3.

⁶⁴ Ibid. ii.46.9.

⁶⁵ Ibid. i.22.7.

⁶⁶ Ibid. ii.35.3.

⁶⁷ Ibid. i.22.3.

⁶⁸ Ibid. i.22.8.

⁶⁹ For examples that do not fit this pattern see ibid. vii.26.5; vii.42.2; vii.43.4.

⁷⁰ See, for example, the letters and documents associated with the Council of Nicaea (ibid. i.6.23, i.9.5), Sirmium (ii.30.11) and Ariminum (ii.37.45, 63).

⁷¹ Ibid. i.36.4; ii.21.6; ii.45.12; iv.7.12; vii.32.20; cf. i.38.6; ii.15.9; vii.5.3 on the ‘daring’ actions of Arius, Macedonius and Sabbatius.

⁷² 2 Peter ii.1 (New International Version). It is widely accepted that most examples of αἵρεσις in the New Testament do not carry pejorative connotations of wrong belief (i.e. a sense of heresy with its opposite in orthodoxy). However, it is significant that 2 Pet. ii.1 is usually listed as an exception: Petramalo, J., ‘Heresy and orthodoxy’, Studia Antiqua vii/2 (2009), 7–8Google Scholar; M. Simon, ‘From Greek hairesis to Christian heresy’, in W. R. Schoedel and R. L. Wilken (eds), Early Christian literature and the classical intellectual tradition: in honorem Robert M. Grant, Paris 1979, 109.

⁷³ Matt. xxiv. 24 (NIV).

⁷⁴ ‘τολμηταὶ, αὐθάδεις, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασϕημοῦντες’: 2 Pet. ii.10.

⁷⁵ Theodoret, HE i.2, and Evagrius, HE i.1; ii.5, identify the devil as the author of the Arian and Nestorian controversies respectively, but the devil is not otherwise frequently referred to. For examples see M. Whitby, The Ecclesiastical history of Evagrius Scholasticus, Liverpool 2000, p. li.

⁷⁶ On consequent uses and interpretations of the parable due to this instruction compare Bainton, ‘Parable’, 67–89 and J. B. Russell, Dissent and reform in the early Middle Ages, Berkeley 1965, 40. For discussion of the terms tolerance and forbearance see E. DePalma Digeser, The making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius and Rome, Ithaca– London 2000, 107–14, and M. Kahlos, Forbearance and compulsion: the rhetoric of religious tolerance and intolerance in late antiquity, London 2009, 6–8.

⁷⁷ John Chrysostom, Homilia in Matthaeum 46, PG lviii.477.

⁷⁸ Augustine, ep. xciii.16–17, 31–3, CSEL xxxiv.

⁷⁹ Theodoret, HE i.2.7; v.7.1; Martin, ‘L'Origine’, 353.

⁸⁰ ‘τοῖς γοῦν ἀκμάζουσιν ἀγαθοῖς, καθὰ ἔϕην, ἐϕεδρεύειν ὁ ϕθόνος ϕιλεῖ. τίς δὲ ἡ αἰτία, δι᾽ ἣν ὁ ἀγαθὸς θεὸς τοῦτο γίνεσθαι συγχωρεῖ, πότερον γυμνάσαι τὰ ἀγαθὰ τῶν δογμάτων βουλόμενος ἢ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει προσγινομένην ἀλαζονείαν ἐκκόπτειν, ἢ ὅπως ποτὲ ἔχει, δυσχερὴς μὲν καὶ μακρὰ ἡ ἀπόδοσις, οὐκ εὔκαιρος δὲ νῦν ἐξετάζεσθαι. οὐ γὰρ δόγματα πρόκειται γυμνάζειν ἡμῖν οὔτε τοὺς περὶ προνοίας καὶ κρίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ δυσευρέτους λόγους κινεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἱστορίαν γεγονότων περὶ τὰς ἐκκλησίας πραγμάτων ὡς οἷόν τε διηγήσασθαι. ὅπως μὲν οὖν μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν Κωνσταντίνου χρόνων ἡ Μανιχαίων παρεϕύη θρησκεία, τοσαῦτα ἱστορείσθω· ἐπανέλθωμεν δὲ ἐπὶ τοὺς χρόνους τῆς προκειμένης ἱστορίας': Socrates, HE i.22.14–15.

⁸¹ Van Nuffelen encourages the reader to compare the passage to Procopius' statements in the Wars (ii.10.4–5; ii.22.1) that defer explanation of events to God: Héritage, 295. Urbainczyk, remarks that the passage bears comparison to statements of impartiality common in histories: Socrates, 46. What follows does not offer an alternative reading but rather one which aims to explore the specificity of the passage in relation to the treatment of heresies.

⁸² On the idea of division rather than doctrinal error see John Chrysostom, Homilia in ep. primam ad Corinthios 27.3, PG lxi.225–8.

⁸³ Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 35, PG vi.549B–553A; Clement, Stromata vii.15.89–90, in Clemens Alexandrinus, ed. O. Staehlin and L. Früchtel, GCS, Berlin 1970; Origen, Contra Celsum iii.12–3, in Origène Contre Celse, ed. M. Borret, SC cxxxvi, Paris 1968; Evagrius, HE i.11.

⁸⁴ Clement, Stromata vii.15.89–90; John Chrysostom, De providentia dei 12, in Jean Chrysotome, Sur la providence de dieu, ed. A.-M. Malingrey, SC lxxix, Paris 1961; Tertulian, De praescriptione haereticorum i.5, in Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, ed. E. Preuschen, Tübingen 1910, repr. Frankfurt 1968; Cyprian, De ecclesiae Catholicae unitate 10, CSEL iii/1.

⁸⁵ Augustine, Confessiones vii.19.25, CSEL xxxiii; Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, i.1; Evagrius, HE i.11; Cyprian, De ecclesiae Catholicae unitate 10.

⁸⁶ See, especially, John Chrysostom, De providentia dei, 12.

⁸⁷ Origen, Contra Celsum iii.12–13; Evagrius, HE i.11.

⁸⁸ See alternative translation in Maraval, Socrate, SC cdxxlvii, 206–7, and additional comments on translation at pp. 11–12 n. 4.

⁸⁹ Socrates, HE vii.6 focuses on Timothy and George, two leaders of contemporary Arianism. The chapter is cited as one that displays Socrates's willingness to praise individuals, regardless of their doctrinal affiliations, for their Greek learning: Maraval, ‘Socrate et la culture’, 282, cf. Urbainczyk, Socrates, 132, and Young, Nicaea, 24–5 n. 78. In the course of the chapter Socrates mentions Timothy and George's eloquence, and even their proficiency in reading Greek literature and Scripture. He also expresses his own surprise that they were so proficient and concludes at vii.6.9 that they ‘unawares, changed the Arian religion for the better’ (‘ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως τὴν Ἀρειανὴν θρησκείαν λεληθότως ἐπὶ τὸ κρεῖσσον μετέθεσαν’). The idea that heresies aid in the discernment of good doctrine is one that ultimately perceives their end and Socrates, HE vii.6, is a good example of how this idea might play out in the History.

⁹⁰ Urbainczyk, Socrates, 45–6; Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 295–9.

⁹¹ Urbainczyk, Socrates, 46; Leppin, Von Constantin, 11 n. 43.

⁹² Wallraff, Kirchenhistoriker, 41 n. 85.

⁹³ On the reference to honorifics in the preface to book vi see Urbainczyk, Socrates, 148. Socrates even avoids ἅγιος as a term to describe people almost entirely. Socrates only refers to the holiness (ἁγιότης) of the Egyptian monks (iv.23.77) and of the bishop of Chebron who is clearly mentioned for his ascetic life which Theodosius admires (vii.22.14). Only two superlatives of θεοϕιλής and εὐσέβεια turn up in Socrates's own prose and in regard to the Emperor Theodosius, not a bishop (vii.23.11: εὐσεβέστατος; vii.42.4: θεοϕιλεστάτῳ).

⁹⁴ See n. 9 above.

⁹⁵ Wallraff, Kirchenhistoriker, 179–84.

⁹⁶ Ibid. 224, cf. 183–4.

⁹⁷ Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 268–9.

⁹⁸ Ibid. 427 n. 3.

⁹⁹ There are several reasons why i.22 may retain its status as a digression. Van Nuffelen is critical of Wallraff's emphasis on deviation from chronology as a key factor distinguishing digressions, on the grounds that chronology is not the only organising principle in the work. Socrates is, however, concerned about the presentation of accurate chronology as suggested by the preface to book ii. Moreover, unacknowledged and calculated disruptions to the ordering of events seem very different to statements that alert the reader to the fact that something is outside the chronological scope of the proposed history as we see at the end of i.22. Both Van Nuffelen and Wallraff suggest that Socrates flags his digressions through introductory and concluding expressions. No one formula is apparent, but certain patterns of expression occur in chapters accepted as digressions by both scholars and are observable in the chapter on Manichaeism. When Socrates states at the end of i.22 that he will ‘return’ (‘ἐπανέλθωμεν’) to the times of the proposed history (‘τῆς προκειμένης ἱστορίας’), there is some overlap with his expression and sentiment at iv.23.80 (‘ἐπανέλθωμεν δὲ ὅθεν ἐξέβημεν’), v.22.81 (‘ἐπαναδράμωμεν δὲ εἰς τὸ προκείμενον’) and vii.37.18 (‘ἐπανέλθωμεν δὲ ὅθεν ἐξέβημεν’). Wallraff argues, with reference to the critique of Paul of Side's lost history (vii.27), that Socrates was interested in the usefulness of excursus, and points out how various digressions give clear reasons for the inclusion of supplementary material. Such explanatory comments emphasise the appropriateness (ii.21.1; v.22.1; vi.13.1: ‘οὐκ ἄκαιρον’), usefulness (vii.36.23: ‘χρήσιμον’), necessity (iv.27.1: ‘δεῖ εἰδέναι’) or profitability (vii.37.18: ‘οὐκ ἀχρείως’) of the material to be discussed. Such varied but complementary expressions can be reasonably compared to Socrates's assertion that he believes it necessary (i.22.3: ‘ἀναγκαῖον ἡγοῦμαι’) to revise Eusebius' treatment of Manichaeism.

¹⁰⁰ See Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 427 n. 3: ‘Il interrompt le récit des bienfaits du règne de Constantin et introduit les quatorze chapitres suivants qui traitent des péripéties d'Athanase (cf. Socrates 1.22.1: ‘Ἀλλὰ μεταξὺ τοῦ χρηστοῦ σίτου εἴωθεν καὶ τὰ ζιζάνια ϕύεσθαι· ϕθόνος γὰρ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἐϕεδρεύειν ϕιλεῖ’). C'est donc une sorte d'introduction à l'ensemble des chapitres 1.22–36.’

¹⁰¹ Socrates, HE i.23.1. Hansen substitutes ἀλήθειαν for ὀρθοδοξίαν on the strength of the Armenian manuscript asserting that Socrates does not use the latter: Sokrates, 69. Wallraff, however, suggests that the apparent wordplay between ὀρθοδοξίαν and κακοδοξίας is an important argument for retaining ὀρθοδοξίαν in this instance: Kirchenhistoriker, 35 n. 38.

¹⁰² The digression may actually start after the initial reference to wheat and weeds, perhaps even with the explanatory reference to Eusebius' botched account of Manichaeism in section 3.

¹⁰³ See n. 63 above.

¹⁰⁴ See pp. 5–7 above.

¹⁰⁵ Cf. Wallraff who suggests that Socrates's Novatianism may lie behind his relative restraint in later chapters: Kirchenhistoriker, 257.

¹⁰⁶ On the role of Manichaeism as an archetypal heresy see R. Lyman, ‘A topography of heresy: mapping the rhetorical creation of Arianism’, in M. R. Barnes and D. H. Williams (eds), Arianism after Arius: essays on the development of the fourth century Trinitarian conflicts, Edinburgh 1993, 45–62.

¹⁰⁷ Wallraff, Kirchenhistoriker, 257 n. 213.

¹⁰⁸ For example, ibid. 222 n. 53.